What kind of nation have we become? Football players, who by tradition are the manliest of men, now are afraid to play outside because it's cold? BECAUSE IT'S COLD? This is an insult to anyone who ever watched the film of Bob Lilly and Jethro Pugh kicking the frozen turf to get a foothold. It's an insult to anyone who saw Derrick Thomas sitting in the deluge in Arrowhead Stadium against Seattle. It's an insult to anyone who didn't quite see the fog game in Chicago.

Football is an outdoor sport. It's an OUTDOOR sport. Mud and snow and grass are part of the game. If you want an inside job, Joe Flacco, I would recommend that you put your physical education degree to use and get a job in some office somewhere.

Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco didn't mask his feelings Monday when he was asked about the NFL's championship being decided next year at MetLife Stadium, the first outdoor Super Bowl at a cold-weather site.

"I think it's retarded. I probably shouldn't say that. I think it's stupid," he told reporters after the Ravens arrived in New Orleans for Sunday's Super Bowl. "If you want a Super Bowl, put a retractable dome on your stadium. Then you can get one.

"Other than that I don't really like the idea. I don't think people would react very well to it, or be glad to play anybody in that kind of weather," he said.

Next year's Super Bowl will be held Feb. 2, 2014, at the building shared by the Giants and Jets in East Rutherford, N.J.

The record low for a Super Bowl kickoff is 39 degrees when Dallas beat Miami in January 1972 at Tulane Stadium in New Orleans. It'll be a lot warmer in the Big Easy when the Ravens and San Francisco 49ers tangle Sunday. They'll be inside the Superdome.

The National Weather Service said the average high in nearby Newark, N.J., on Feb. 2 is 39.8 degrees and the low is 24.2. The average precipitation on that date going back to 1931 is about one-eighth of an inch.

Last week, on a 24-degree Thursday in Manhattan that felt a lot colder because of the wind, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league is "thrilled" that next year's Super Bowl is being hosted in the New York region, while adding that they'll be "prepared" in the event of harsh weather conditions.

"We made this decision [to play the game here], obviously not knowing what the weather would be, but football is made to be played in the elements," Goodell said Thursday during a news conference at City Hall, adding that temperatures are forecast to be about 50 degrees next week.

"We're gonna celebrate the game here. We're gonna celebrate the weather here. We're gonna make it a great experience," he said.

No city is immune to rugged weather. Even though Green Bay and Pittsburgh played inside Cowboys Stadium two years, snow and ice blanketed the lead-up events.

The only significant precipitation during a Super Bowl came in February 2007 at Miami. Playing in a rainstorm, Indianapolis and Chicago committed four turnovers in the first quarter.

Expect ticket sales to be brisk next year, StubHub spokesman Glenn Lehrman said last week. He predicted the 2014 Super Bowl would create the largest demand "we've ever had."

"I think people want to be part of a first-time experience. Whatever it is," he said.

Lehrman said because so many people live on the East Coast -- within driving distance of the stadium, not needing pricey hotel rooms -- cold weather wouldn't have a chilling effect.

Goodell and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg last week gave an overview of plans and events leading up to the game, highlighted by the creation of a "Super Bowl Boulevard," a massive fan event with free admission in midtown Manhattan that will take place from Jan. 29 to Feb. 1. Fans will be able to see the Vince Lombardi Trophy, catch nightly concerts and check out NFL-themed exhibits.

The NFC team will work out at the Giants' practice facility in East Rutherford, N.J., while the AFC team will practice at the Jets' facility in Florham Park, N.J. Both teams will stay at hotels in New Jersey.

One study projected that the economic impact to the region would add $550 million to $600 million.

Completely agree. As I was reading this thread, I figured I'd be the first one to post a dissenting opinion, and that I'd get blasted for being a wimp who doesn't appreciate real football. I'm glad htismaqe beat me to it.

I want the Super Bowl to decide who the best team is, and the way you guarantee that is to play the game in a warm weather site or in a dome. I don't want extreme weather conditions to decide the Super Bowl winner.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching regular season games played in blizzards (as long as I get to watch it on my HDTV), and I have no problem with playoff games being played in blizzards and ice as well. But the Super Bowl is a two-week extravaganza. Flacco is right: it's retarded to play the game in a cold-weather city.

I hope next year's Super Bowl is played in zero degree temperatures, blinding snow, and perhaps even an ice storm. It will be fun to watch from the comfort of my living room, and the NFL may just learn something from the experience.

Playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather stadium every year benefits teams who play in warm weather all year (or indoors). A team that's built to survive cold-weather football in order to win its division then doesn't have a chance to play for a championship in that weather? That just doesn't seem right.

__________________
My ancestors fought cave bears so I could make this post.

Playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather stadium every year benefits teams who play in warm weather all year (or indoors). A team that's built to survive cold-weather football in order to win its division then doesn't have a chance to play for a championship in that weather? That just doesn't seem right.

Given that the Pats, Packers, and Giants have dominated in recent memory, I don't think cold weather teams are at much of a disadvantage.

Playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather stadium every year benefits teams who play in warm weather all year (or indoors). A team that's built to survive cold-weather football in order to win its division then doesn't have a chance to play for a championship in that weather? That just doesn't seem right.

I absolutely concur sir, I have never looked at it from this angle before. That certainly would benefit the warm weather teams, which is why you'll never see a cold weather team like NYG, GB, Pitt, or NE win the big gam...

I absolutely concur sir, I have never looked at it from this angle before. That certainly would benefit the warm weather teams, which is why you'll never see a cold weather team like NYG, GB, Pitt, or NE win the big gam...

Your theory, it needs work doctor.

Think how good those teams would be if only they could play the championships in cold weather.

__________________
My ancestors fought cave bears so I could make this post.

Think how good those teams would be if only they could play the championships in cold weather.

Well now you've gone and switched sides. I agree that GB would have a big homefield advantage in Jan against someone like Tampa Bay. The reverse is not true, its not like northern players have a complete breakdown when the temperature hits the sixties range. Northern players spend half of their year in 90 degree weather too, the difference being FL players don't spend half of their year in 10 degree weather.

I think a lot of it has to do with overall appeal of "the event" and also somewhat of a reward to the players that busted their asses to get there. It's fairly simple, you ask all of the players/fans/media where they'd prefer to spend a week in February and you will hear lots of Miami/NO/SD etc. Plus how pissed would you be as a player if your reward for getting to the SB was to play a game in Buffalo in -10 degree weather?